Monday, 16 November 2015

Following on from a recent
blog about the importance of tuition fees, there is another bit of
confusion doing the rounds. There used to be a cap to ensure universities had a
limited number of students achieving grades AAB or higher at A-level. When the cap was lifted a few years ago, some higher education commentators
were concerned that this would lead to the creation of an elite English “Ivy
League”, reflective of the American higher education systems, and possibly even
alienating students from poorer backgrounds less likely to achieve high grades.

Their fears have come to pass, as currently over half of students
achieving AAB or better at A Level are concentrated in just twelve universities
(they are: Manchester, Durham, Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, Leeds, Exeter,
Bristol, Warwick, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton.)

However, even though there is a high concentration of high grade
students attending just twelve universities, there is absolutely no reason why
this should be a problem - in fact, it is quite the opposite: it is a blessing
in disguise, because it gives exhibition to the healthiness of competition and
the value of incentivisation to do well and go to the best universities.

By equal measure, a competitive higher education market incentivises
universities to pull out all the stops to attract the brightest and best
students and be as high up as possible in the league table of results
nationwide. In a marketplace with healthy competition and demonstrable
incentives to strive for high standards you would expect to see cluster groups
of high achievers, just as you see in sport, in retail and in entertainment. But competition doesn't just make the best better, it raises (or has the potential to raise) the standard of everyone, because it should incentivise lower performers to up their game, either by improving standards, by innovating to capture an unfilled niche, or in some cases by trying something different altogether.

The other peculiar thing many people tell us is that if a higher
education marketplace is too openly competitive it will work against people who
are bright but from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is an absurdly counterfactual
objection to have, because it will actually have the opposite effect. An
education marketplace that is too money-centred will be a bad thing because, in
terms of performance and results, selection against bright disadvantaged
students will disadvantage the university.

Consider why. Suppose Oxford and Cambridge had hiked up
admission fees to attract the elite. Such a policy goes against the thing they
should value most - academic credentials. If you are an employer looking to
employ an Oxford
graduate, who would you prefer; one who got in on scholastic merit, or one who
got in because of a privileged financial background? The value of attending Oxford depends largely on
the university's reputation, which is built primarily on prior academic
excellence of former students. By having applicant quality as the measure of
admission, the average student quality can be increased, which then further
increases the prestige, which then increases the allure for high-quality future
applicants.

A system that neatly balances the admission quantity between talented
young people that can pay (and do), and talented people that can't pay and are
helped along the way, is a system that is just about right. It is inevitably
true that being from a privileged high achieving background does confer
advantages on young people that young people from working class backgrounds do
not enjoy. This upsets lots of people - but it should not. Privilege mostly
comes (either directly or indirectly) from high achievement. Therefore if you
want to argue that that is a bad thing, you are arguing that a world in which
achievement engenders advantage is a bad thing, which amounts to devaluing
merit-based advantages - and to do that is to make a mockery of applying skills
and working hard in general.

About Me

This is the Blog of James Knight - a keen philosophical commentator on many subjects.
My primary areas of interest are: philosophy, economics, politics, mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, theology, psychology, history, the arts and social commentary.
I also contribute articles to the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economics Affairs.
Hope you enjoy this blog! Always happy to hear from old friends and new!
Email:j.knight423@btinternet.com